[AoS should encourage bigger lists to have more variety!]

17 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

In table top simulator, where you don't need to buy or own the minis, so people vary their lists just for fun as much as they want. I mean, it is a different beast altogether, I am not sure TTS tournies mean that much in that regard.

 

the player interaction and the communication between the players before the game can ben exactly the same. Sure not everybody has a mega gargant, I know I will never get one. But that doesn't mean you can't have that conversation beforehand and adjust to your opponents vision. 

If we both like cycling, but you've been doing it for 6 years and I just started. We can still go for a lovely ride. But expecting me to keep up with you is unrealistic. 

To me Wargaming is similar. If we have a game and you want something different from it, then we will either adjust so we can go on that ride together. If I have the bigger collection i'll bring a matching list. Or if I can't or don't want to, then I'm going to look for a different opponent. No hard feelings but that way we can both have fun. 

(and to go further with the analogy, on our cycling ride do we stop at every bar for a beer, or do we push ourselves. Because I play a lot of the first players  )

17 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

As for solutions, mimic better what 40k is doing for army composition. Even after removing a lot of the restrictions in army building in 9th you see lists that have plenty of variety. True, there are some restrictions (rule of 3), but people simply choose to bring variety anyway to fulfill different battlefield roles.

Yeah, it might. I haven't played 40k 9th so it's hard for me to judge. My mate told me a bit about the changes and I never really like the 40k rock-paper-sciccors aspect and it seems to not have changed. That always felt like you were obligated to take specialized units/weapons or otherwise you couldn't realistically kill the thing they were supposed to kill. But i'm hesitant to judge without having played a few games of 40k 9th. But I don't see that happening any time soon, as I feel AoS is in a really good and creative place. not to mention my current Warcry obsession.

 

But can I ask you a question? Do you enjoy playing AoS? Or more specific when do you? What kind of games, lists, opponents are they?

[AoS should encourage bigger lists to have more variety!]

Because this might spark a whole different conversation I've put it in a different post. 
But there is a great thing happening in the TTS community. They recently did a 'fat middle' tournament, where all the top dogs where banned. Now they have voted for doing either a competitive tournament or a fun tournament (their distinction not mine 😂). Results came in 50/50. 

Now this is what I'm talking about when I argue that player contact is more important than the rules themselves. Everybody in the competitive tournament knows exactly what they are signing up for and they'll have a great time with one sided lists, gimmicks, and generally smashing face. And anyone who is looking for something different simply can skip that tournament because...

the next day, the Titans of Ghur starts. Every battle takes place in Ghur realmrules and all. All armies must bring a Mega Gargant. And no warscroll can be taken more than twice in an army. That looks like a blast, I had just planned a warcry session for that day and I genuinely considered postponing it for this tournament.  (my girlfriend thinks we're going because it's the guys birthday but we know better). 

But that last rule is of course really relevant to this conversation. So maybe some people here would like to join it. 

 

Hammertime: Titans of Ghur: https://tabletop.to/hammertime-titans...

 

[AoS should encourage bigger lists to have more variety!]

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

That's a very weird take

right back at ya

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

That's a very weird take. The fact that 27 eels + volty was the only competitive IDK list was not the consequence of some fundamental philosophical point of principle, it was just bad faction design. We know this to be true, because GW just released something that remedies the issues by addressing the internal balance of the codex so that a greater variety of builds are competitively viable. 

You are arguing that it isn't possible to do something that GW just did. That's not a very convincing argument. More broadly, you keep arguing against this straw man that anybody is saying there'll ever be a point where all lists are equally viable.

But this to me isn't a strawman. Or at the very least, I never implied 'anybody is saying there'll ever be a point where all lists are equally viable.' as far as i'm aware. sorry if it came across like putting words in your mouth.  But hey, I was writing in a very sleep deprived state with a 4 week year old on my chest this morning. Blame her  

But I'm happy to admit then when I reread my post I did skip a step in my argumentation. which is maybe the reason why we are misunderstanding eachother. Just didn't want to keep beating the same drum. But here it is: 

The general conversation in this thread, as I understand it, is that a group of people argue that they can't build/don't see enough varied lists and still feel like they are competing with that. And that this is a direct result by bad game design by GW.

Which you defined later as: 'There would absolutely not be the same resistance to IDK if the most powerful list was a balanced list that took 1-2 of most units in the book.' Which was the post I replied to. (and as I side note I still maintain that if that was the only IDK list for the next four years you would definitely see the same resistance)

My argument is that this is only possible by increasing restriction to list building. Which can be implemented through battalions, battlefield roles etc, but the how is a bit besides the point. Because if you don't restrict it, players will figure out which warscroll is the best in its role and take that warscroll over others, exactly what's happening now. I don't see a solution that achieves that in this thread so far. But if it's there happy to hear it. 

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

They're asking for changes to the game to make the gap between the gimmicky "spam all this unit" lists and the more well-rounded "take a bunch of different stuff" lists smaller, such that you can realistically take such a list without feeling like you're throwing away the chance at winning in a competitive setting. In other words, what they did in Morathi for IDK. If they can do it for IDK - the worst spam list offender in the entire game - they can do it for other factions too. 

It's really weird to have staked out a position premised on the idea that it is impossible to do what GW has just done. 

The way I see it they didn't achieve that at all. The Deepkin lists as I see them now, in the threads here and in TTS tournament coverage, it's a bit more varied, sure. But its not 1-2 of most units in the book either. Still very noticeably no Namarti or foot heroes. The only reason that turtles and (mainly) sharks are now taken is because it makes the eels even better. 

Again it's more varied, and i'm all for that, of course I am. The Turtles and sharks are amazing models.
This btw was the most varied I could find, from the Hammerlist TTS tournament . And usually it's one turtle and more eels as I understand it. Not sure if the Mathlan is often taken. But still a bit better I agree, but not to the definitions of varied that have been used in this thread.

And let me just throw up some examples of what I mean when I say it is possible through restrictions. 

Through Battalions could be a good way to encourage more varied lists. The vanguard stormcast battalion springs to mind. The units itself aren't great, but because of the battalion in combination with the stormhost they become a very fun, strong and varied list (still 3x raptors and 3x birds but still counts as varied in my mind). It's very fun to play, and great selection of heroes, infantry, cavalry, shooting and movement tricks. But it's super limited in what you can take. The three support heroes you can switch around but that's it. that's what you're taking.

Another way could be through battlefield restrictions or rewards. minimum and maximum numbers of a battlefield role vs. Score extra with leaders/battleline/behemoth etc. And to be fair to GW, they do that a bit already. I think it could work but they need to up impact of both to do so. But in return that would limit list building too much for me. Then that last ride of the Rohirrim eel list could suddenly become unworkable if you really need a behemoth to win games. Regardless if I take it because the unit is great or because I love the theme of an all cav list. 

The only army, out of 25?, that is varied by those standards is Kharadron Overlords. Which is absolutely fine btw. It's a great army now, but it's noticeably smaller in warscrolls, which is a limit in and of itself. Which I personally don't mind, but this thread feels kind of a spin off, of the Fireslayers model variation thread so i'm curious to hear if people who want more variation agree with KO as an army being varied enough.

TLDR, I think the varied lists as discussed in this thread is unachievable without too many restrictions in list building for my taste. And I haven't seen a solution for that problem suggested. If there is a solution that dives deeper than, GW needs to design armies better, I genuinely love to hear it.

But having said all that, I still feel the solution is inside of the rules already. The flexibility and open structure allow you to build (close to) whatever list you want. And if you talk to your opponent before making your lists you can go from Waac to soft narrative and everything in between. At least that's how I experienced the game over the last few years.

[AoS should encourage bigger lists to have more variety!]

4 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

There would absolutely not be the same resistance to IDK if the most powerful list was a balanced list that took 1-2 of most units in the book. You would not hear people say "oh god, not that balanced IDK list again with a bunch of different unit types! that's so boring to play against! why can't we have 27 eels + volty instead?"

But there is a reason why it doesn’t happen. Because when you compare those units in the list there will always be advantages to taking most. 

Armies with a small model line are the only examples that I can think of where the happens. KO kinda do 1-2 repetitions of units. But it still ends up being the same list over and over. And you’re right people don’t say: ‘oh that’s that balanced KO list with a bunch of different units.’  
they say, ‘oh that’s that boring ziflin vortex list’. 
because thats what happens. 

and if you get rules enforcing that you can’t build all mounted lists (eels/pistoleros/demography/deathrider, scourgerunner chariots, goregruntas), or no all monster lists (beastclaw, squigs, trolls), or herohammerring (Nagash with a mortach, 3/4 greater daemons, 3 mawcrushers) or within cities can’t build all human, aelf, duardin lists then of course people will complain as well. 

In my mind it boils down to this:

you can argue that you want more mixed lists and that the current game is worse off for not encouraging that more.

I see that as you having a very specific vision of what is thematic and finding it disappointing that it isn’t good enough to compete. 

And I’m realistic/cynical/experienced enough to be convinced that you can’t create that vision without limiting other people building their vision. 
mat least now we can build, play and have fun with pretty much everything we want as long as you find an opponent with the same vision. 

[AoS should encourage bigger lists to have more variety!]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

think what animates a lot of people is they don't like facing a list of 27 eels + volturnos, to take an obvious example. If someone really *wants* to bring that list fine...but the game shouldn't make it the best IDK list you can bring.

I think what animates the other half of the conversation is that a lot of people don’t mind facing 27 eels + volturnus. It’s cool it’s thematic. The only shame is that it’s the only list you see. And almost everyone agrees with that at least. 
but whatever, in your words, is made the best list by the game; will meet the same resistance.

because whatever the options available you’ll get people figuring out what’s the strongest options, and then that becomes the new list to play. That’s what tournaments are. 

thats why it’s so important to have an idea of what your opponents are looking for and matching that with what you want. 

The other argument of it being more thematic for lists to be more mixed is subjective. I get it, I personally like things to be a bit specialised. But fair enough. 

And think of it this way, if the eel warscroll was the worst in the book. The player that brings an all eels list would be an absolute legends. He would get high fives when he rocks up with his army, old bretonnian players would bring him/her tankards of ale for keeping the dream alive,

 and nobody would never ever complain about it not being thematic. 

And of course its a good thing when GW updates factions to the current standard. But sadly we are in a game that has a slow turn around I. That respect. It’s a lot faster than it was though. 

[The Rumour Thread]

59 minutes ago, Thiagoma said:

We need someone to photoshop shields and spears on this little guy.  Maybe a little helmet.

And a key

[AoS should encourage bigger lists to have more variety!]

4 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

7 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

 

I don't think that is a valid point, honestly. While of course I support not beign a ******, the game should not rely on people "house ruling" armies out to deliver a fun experience, that is the point of balance and the rules!

I agree with @Neil Arthur Hotep. Because it isn’t as black as white as you present it. There is vast space between being an a-hole and house ruling your army. 

If we’re playing a game and I know you’re a new player that has just started collecting stormcast, I’m not bringing my KO lightning vortex in a bottle ziflin list. The game would be over turn 1. Then I would try a ground troop focussed morhnar list that has me intrigued but I don’t know how to play. 
that’s the social contract. I know of your situation and I make sure we both have a fun game. Not an a-hole, not houseruling. 
mand the other way around as well.  If I know your aiming to win next months big tourney and you see our game as a practice match I’m not bringing my har kuron ‘dark elf nostalgia’ list. I’m dropping all my old metal corsairs and going full hag narr. 
again knowing the situation of the opponent and making sure we both have fun. Not an a-hole, not houseruling. 
 

4 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

It is just so tricky to do "quick" adjustments to lists depending on the opponent for so many reasons.  Including but not restricted to limitations on the available models or the understanding of what is competitive.

But this absolutely. It isn’t easy, and everybody occasionally misjudges it. Especially due to all the synergies. That killer unit suddenly becomes weak sauce without the buff. But no middle ground there. 
also with the time and money invested in the armies. It’s not like TTS where you can keep switching things around. 
I remember my first club game as a kid. Knew the player, used to be my old hockey coach, he brought orcs and goblins me my dwarfs. 
he cast foot of gork turn one, irritable force and destroyed a over half my army. 
he felt worse about it than me 😅

But I rather have that grey area for us all to play around in, rather than (close to) pre-built armies that guarantee balance and 

[AoS should encourage bigger lists to have more variety!]

57 minutes ago, BigNStinky said:

don't know if a roll off is the answer but some factions (like BoC/Sons of Behemat which I also play) just have 1-2 useable battalions (on the expensive side or NONE in the case of Sons) in a sea of mediocre battalions and could really use the roll off to ever be considered for first turn.

Don’t know that either. But it will make deployment more interesting. 😄

[AoS should encourage bigger lists to have more variety!]

7 minutes ago, Evantas said:

I feel that the advantage of battalions in reducing number of drops, is a huge factor in reducing variety. 

If people are less incentivised to have as few drops as possible, and have more MSUs, maybe there can be more variety. 

Absolutely

Im still of the opinion that first turn should always be a roll off. 
That prevents guaranteeing getting first turn and maybe as a result hyper focussed alpha builds. 

don’t know if it will really change the look of the game. But alpha armies that deploy on the line might then need a screening unit here and there.  

And setting up first can still win ties or even +1 to the roll off. 

[The moment you realize you might actually suck at this hobby :P]

Play more games....

easiest. And most fun. Solution. 
find a club, find friends, find enemies. Just play more. Because playing is more fun with build models, and even more fun with painted models.

its the best motivator.  

[The Rumour Thread]

26 minutes ago, Dreddships said:

VAMPIRES BABY LETS GO

No, no, no. 

i was okay with ya’ll shouting for vampirates. But I’m drawing the line at vampire baby’s. 

[Fyreslayers: discussing their design]

20 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

If someone likes it, cool, but the unfortunate thing is that a homogenous monotone force of identical nude infantry and the odd monster is currently the only way to play fyreslayers. The handful of folks who have a preference for that* are catered for while anyone who wants a slightly more diverse or aesthetically varied force (even on the level of, say, Stormcast or FEC; still all big gold dudes/wretched cannibals, still has variation and can nonetheless be taken in different ways) is left out entirely. 

I like your idea of a force built around mini-Gotreks though. Glowing, super-Saiyan dwarves laughing as they leap into the fray, like in the Bonereapers novella. It would shift tack to a sort of elite CC army, which has potential and is more my jam anyway.

* which I get on one level, it's good to see a force with solid core/infantry/troops at the centre, though not to the complete exclusion of everything else.

agreed. 

What I always wondered about though as a Fyreslayer player, and maybe I haven't looked for enough, why wouldn't you differentiate units by colour of the crest?

And can we talk about skin tone. Caucasian/bronzed skin tone with orange hair is too similar on tabletop distance. Yeah, you can make it work on an individual level but not army white. Ohh and also paint some runes gold, and gold weapons. just to add to the one colour look.

[Fyreslayers: discussing their design]

57 minutes ago, sandlemad said:

I agree with the charm of the older chaos warriors, that whole serried ranks of ironclad killers thing, but that's at the level of a single unit. Those chaos warriors would still, in an average WHFB or AoS force, be visually offset by a unit of heavily armoured cavalry, half-naked marauders, low-to-the-ground war beasts, hulking trolls or ogres, and towering monsters. There's visual variety.

 

like you say. Two different things. I agree with you regarding fyrslayers btw. But I was just showing support for a poster who said he prefered unity. I do as well. 

But even on army level I get it. It's a show of taste. I hate to play it, but I love to bring only clanrats with some heroes to a game. It looks awesome. A wave of rats with 3 to 5 stand out heroes in there. It's great.  Never for games bigger than 1k though 😂

Again I don't think it works for Fyreslayers. But if someone likes it. Fair play. 

Thinking about it. Double the points of all the fireslayer, so the units are halved and it already looks so much better. Make the hearthguard all mini gotreks so you never bring more than 15 in a unit and already it will look good i feel.  

 

[AoS 2 - Skaventide Discussion]

4 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:

Gotta get a Thanquol.  Love that model.  What do people think is best to arm him with?  All Warpfire, all braziers, or a mix?  Or does it depend on what else is in the army?

I always thought I would magnetise him when I finally get around to that model. 
I can’t imagine GW replacing that model in the next update, but that way I’m not stuck with the less cool configuration if the rules change. 

[Fyreslayers: discussing their design]

15 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

I don't use Warhammer models for wargaming, but here's my take:

I like diversity. Cities gives lots of sculpts that may be harder to pull together, but when they do, it's brilliant.

Monopose models or very similar models do not have the versatility that warrants GW prices, while something like Arkanauts and Escher gang does.

Kharadron are a good example. There is about as much variety in the Arkanauts box as there is in all infantry Fyreslayers combined. But then we also have heavier Thunderers with 6 weapon options, Balloon boys with two, five distinct heroes, and of course, the ships.

If you'd strip KO down to the Frigate and the Arkanauts, I think you have about as much model variety as the entire Fyreslayers range.

Fair play to you. Abd to each their own. 

but for some models I like that uniformity. 
the lumineth sentinels are a good example. Very samey, not much variation but it works for that army.

exact opposite of the other elven archers; idoneth reavers. Very individual, very dynamic and that fits the faction. 

both warrant the GW prices Imo abd the sentinels are pretty much monopose. Especially looking at them in profile. 

Its all down to how you envision the lore. And if you are using the models just for painting or skirmish I agree. Then Variety is better but for wargaming there is nothing wrong with a uniform look and pose if that fits the faction. 

EDIT: to also reply to your comparison. First off the arkanauts are deckhands and occasional pirates. No I don’t think they should be as monopose as for example the ironbreakers. But the other way around is also true. Don’t give me so dynamic (as far as their stubby legs allow) ironbreakers as the arkanauts are. 
in the comparison with the KO and fyreslayers is partly true. But if you field KO with so big units things get messy as well. 
The balloon boys are just a weapon swap, the. Arkanauts and thunderers do differ but during my last warcry game my opponent admired the only difference he looked for was the weapon itself abd don’t get me started on the different thunderer special weapons   the little foot heroes are about as recogniseable in both factions. 
but you are right on the boats... so wo more fyre monsters please GW 😁

[AoS should encourage bigger lists to have more variety!]

On 1/10/2021 at 7:21 AM, Dingding123 said:

Regardless of my hot takes, points per list within conditions can be a fantastic lever for list variety that GW simply has yet to pull. 

Personally I hope not. 
1. rules upon rules upon rules. AoS is already becoming such a convoluted mess. I got back into the hobby because I could explain the game in 15 minutes and me and friends could play. It’s not as bad as WHFB was when I quit but we’re definitely going that direction. 

2. Limitations in list building means less options to build a theme and will limit outlier lists. I like that occasionally someone props up with an off the wall list. Like the guy on tga that runs all scourge chariots, or that TTS player with max cockatrices. But also if I have a theme in my head, say I  want a full pistoleer army that I’m converting with cowboy hats, such limitations would mean I need to force in min sized unit just to get it matched play legal. 

3. competive players gonna compete. No stopping it. You can think of any solution you want. But if two units in the same faction have roughly the same role but one is more points efficient... I’m maxing that one. Only allowing one marauder unit per chaos warriors unit? Fine 5 warriors and 30 Marauders it is then. Instead of 40 Marauders. 
My whole game plan  is to flood the board with high save wounds. Here come the liberators/putrid blightkings. Doesn’t matter if you also now need to bring something else. 
And GW can keep playing that game until only one list is available per faction but until then you will see that behaviour. 

from a personal standpoint I’m not a fan of point 3 btw. But I do appreciate other people enjoying the hobby that way, I just don’t want the restriction to ‘fix’ point 3 to hurt point 1 & 2. Because that will hurt my enjoyment 😅

[Fyreslayers: discussing their design]

21 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

That surprises me. Why would anyone NOT want variety? Is it worse to be able to choose between multiple sculpts / units for the same role than to be forced to take the one option? It is not like you must buy all the different "troop" options, just because they are out there. Maybe you can expand on why it hurts to have more options.

Is it worse to want your army to be uniform?  It’s not like you. must build and paint the fyreslayers as they come out of the box. 

Sorry, couldn’t resist. Don’t know why it bothers me when people write keywords in bold to make a point 😅

for what it’s worth. I like the old stoic chaos warriors more than the new dynamic ones. 
on release I was sold but when I actually saw them on the table I lost my enthusiasm. 
instead of the unrelenting horde of ironclad and impervious raiders marching from the desolate wastes in lockstep... they looked like, wel, basically a Warcry warband with better armour. 

On a slightly separate note, and I might do a different topic on this, how many units and how versatile do people want a faction to be? 
I like the faction to be specialists. It annoys me that stormcast got a magic chamber for example. All factions Imo should lean into two or three strengths and be weak at the rest.

So a faction like KO which has amazing shooting but no good and survivable combat unit works best for me. So it’s logical that they don’t have many kits. 

If you add 2 maybe three more units to the current lumineth realm lords range they could have separated them into the mountain and the old skool parts. And made them two armies. 

[Fluff wise, what happens to Stormcast Eternals mutated by Tzeentch spells?]

I trust @Baron Klatz recollection on this one. 
but i wills at, GW is inventing reason for stormcast souls not to escape left right and centre. 
so don’t let it stand in the way of cool conversion. 
also show said conversion 😅

[Tale of X online gamers]

10 minutes ago, Sinarai said:

Hey Everyone!

 Here he is, my kitbash, completely done (until i find some touch ups!) and wanted to share a short blurb of homebrew for him

I hope you enjoy both as much as I have had building & painting him. I have two more waiting for their greenstuff treatment but first im going to flesh out this main hero of my homebrew

C&C welcome!

Parvat’Shakti, Honored High Warchief of Haset

“As the large Hathorian charged towards them, the Gors and Bullgors did not know how to react. At first, they thought him one of their own, for the form was that of their own, or seemed to be. Instead of patches of fur, he was covered in long thick fur that even covered part of his face, or was it a mask? They could not tell from the distance they stood, it was not until they realized that his weapon radiated with pure light and that his armor bore both Lumineth and strange symbols that he was not one of their own. With a horrendous war call, the raiding party begins their own charge at the yak-like minotaur in front of them. Before combat was met, man-sized bolts whistled down from the sky skewering a few gor and a bullgors where they stood. With a thunderous war cry of his own Parvat’Shakti, Honored High Warchief of Haset crashed into the gors as an avalanche crashes into a building. Swinging his mace, its pure piercing light energy cauterizing and melting armor that it struck. The remaining Bullgors rushed the Hathorian, almost as large as he and more in number, seeking the blood and flesh of their assailant. Parvat’Shakti raised his shield to the first one, its green crystals pulsing outwards with his own push, sending the first bullgor flying back several meters, crashing into a highland boulder. Swinging his crude axe, the second Bullgor is parried by the Honored High Warchief’s own weapon. As the bullgor raised his axe to strike the sense of pain raised through his back, and then his chest; a beam of light soon shown where the bullgors chest cavity once was. The lifeless body fell before Parvat’Shakti, blood is shown on his war mask, he again wades into the remaining beasts, none are spared.” - First Encounter of Beast of Chaos and Hathorians, outside of Iakhu, Capital of the Hathorian Nations

Parvat’Shakti, meaning “Mountain Strength” or “The Mountain’s Strength” is the personal Honored High Warchief of Haset, and the first Male Hathorian to be made by the Goddess. Created for war, Haset imbued in him all of her own combat prowess and knowledge, he is war made manifest. Since before the Age of Myth, Parvat’Shakti has commanded over the Avatar’s armies, or Folds, and has crushed many in her name.  
 
Over the ages many High Warchiefs have challenged the ancient Honored High Warchief for his position, and to be Haset’s personal High Warchief; they soon realize their folly. Though all-male Hathorians are bred for war, none can match Parvat’Shatki’s strength or tactical intelligence, they are soon overpowered and sent back to their own folds.

Pivotal to the battle of Tor Yriquel, Parvat’Shakti lead the charge of the Hathorian Elite Guard, The Mountain Guardians, to repel the Slaanesh war host that had been carving a path of death through Ilithia during the Spirefall. The Hathorian fold caught the Slaaneshi forces off guard, being able to hold them long enough for the remaining Ilithian forces to regroup and join back into the battle. The ferocity that the Hathorians fought with inspired the aelves, but it was Parvat’Shakti’s own martial prowess that inspired them even more. Cutting down even the largest of Slaangor, the High Warchief seemed unstoppable, it was only until a Keeper of Secrets emerged that the tide began to shift again. If it was not for the Warchief's own tactical foresight the battle would have been lost. His own forces holding back the Keeper of Secrets and elite center, allowing the Ilithian infantry to flank the weaker sides of the piercer formation of the Slaaneshi force. Enough time was bought for Haset herself to engage the greater daemon of Slaanesh, soon the village was won and the Hathorians disappeared again, like the myths of old and the new rumors circulating that are told. It would not be for another passing of Ulgu that the Hathorians and Ilithians of the region would become military allies.
 

 

That’s one beautiful yak😍

[Ordering from the EU after 01-01-2021]

1 hour ago, Lowki said:

Oh yeah, love to, got to warn you that I am a far from experienced player

I’m very experienced but a very bad player so that equals out  

lets first see what the new restrictions will be Tuesday but set up a game when it’s responsible 

[The Painting Contract - January 2021]

On 1/8/2021 at 8:38 AM, Sonnenspeer said:

You need a king to lead this army 

you claiming the spot?

[Fyreslayers: discussing their design]

2 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

I'd say the reason for this is precisely the challenge with smaller scale models with realistic proportions.

 

The metal deamonettes or executioners aren't that out of proportion. It's more that there is a kind of negative space on the model to draw the eye to the important bits. The stormcast I've painted, mainly vanguard and sacrosanct, are so bedecked with little details and bits and bobs that they are a pain. Same for the Eels i'm painting now, while the Reavers and Thralls were a lot beter. And don't get me started on all the KO rivets I painted two years ago 😂

I don't think that's anything to do with oversized parts or realism. It's more about allowing space to be empty. If anything smaller scale models (regardless of proportion) should be relatively clean. But they're becoming more and more detailed as well.  And Fyreslayers 'suffer' from that as well, but so do the stormcast so size isn't the issue  

2 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

Fyreslayers inherit the worse design period, IMO: ~2014 dwarf sculp

what are some specific 2014 sculpts?

[Fyreslayers: discussing their design]

47 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

think there is a lot to be said for the more expressive style of the older models.

If only that they are so much fun to paint. Having looked at my painted list from the last few years slayers, metal daemonettes, metal executioners, boobsnake, Ogors they are the ones that stand out as being the most fun to paint. 

that’s not the same as most beautiful model btw

but those old ‘heroic’ scale models had real focus. This bit is important so we going to make it stand out. This is not, so nothing special here. 

it makes those exaggerated bits stand out even more. And that helps me paint, and makes it more enjoyable somehow. 

[Ordering from the EU after 01-01-2021]

1 hour ago, azdimy said:

In the US, I cannot order gw products from uk online resellers like element games or others

But surely there are us resellers with discounts  right? 

[Ordering from the EU after 01-01-2021]

2 minutes ago, azdimy said:

At least you can still order  gw products from the uk from resellers even if it may be not as good of a deal as it was. Many are not as lucky.The fact that gw can enforce uk resellers not to ship their  products  outside of the uk and  the eu is crazy

Wait where does that happen?